3 ms·

I checked the population of both Phillips County, Arkansas and Lowndes County, Alabama and they have ~15k and ~10k populations, respectively. That's a single d

I checked the population of both Phillips County, Arkansas and Lowndes County, Alabama and they have ~15k and ~10k populations, respectively. That's a single digit number of homicides over a 4 year period. The Mark Twain quote concerning statistics would be pertinent here.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago
Yes, the numbers were per capita, so urban areas have the advantage of dividing their incidents by their huge population numbers. It’s like playing the lottery, the odds might be better for being a victim of crime in rural areas, but there are alot more people in urban areas who will become a victim (just less chance it will be yourself).
- TechBro8615 3y ago
  I'm not sure it's so simple. You're assuming the same random distribution of victims in each place. But crimes are rarely random, and to the degree that they are crimes of opportunity (mugging, robbing a store, senseless violence) vs. premeditated targeting (revenge, passion, etc), it's possible that urban crimes are "more random" than rural crimes. I don't know that they are, of course, but you'd need to be a bit more careful than simply assuming normally distributed randomness of being victim to a homicide.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    No, cities are even less dangerous for most people by that measure. Most people in cities aren’t in gang, nor are they dealing drugs or picking up hookers on the Highway. This is a well known issue, even in “dangerous” cities like St. Louis, homicide victims are often related to the perpetrators in some way (eg in an opposing gang). Violent crime victims are also more likely to be poor (this is true in rural areas as well).
- itsyaboi 3y ago
  > In 2020, the total gun death rate for rural communities—when age-adjusted per 100,000 people—was 40 percent higher than it was for large metropolitan areas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy
pseudo0 3y ago
The variance in homicide rate is going to be drastically larger for a tiny county of 10k people than a county with 1 million. The difference between 0 homicides/100k and 50 homicides/100k is five people. So trying to compare a few giant urban counties and a bunch of small rural counties is going to result in the small rural counties dominating both the lowest and the highest spots. I noticed they did not list the 20 counties with the lowest homicide rates, I suspect because it would have been 20 tiny rural counties with a rate of 0. And that would have contradicted their narrative. They also selectively choose between "gun deaths" and homicides, and also apply an "age-adjustment" fudge factor, so the numbers they present are not accurate representations of actual homicide rates. Homicide also includes justifiable homicides, like self-defense or justifiable use of force police shootings. It's a pretty classic example of selective presentation and twisting of statistics to suit a pre-established narrative. Not really surprising given who paid for the piece.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago

Yes, the numbers were per capita, so urban areas have the advantage of dividing their incidents by their huge population numbers. It’s like playing the lottery, the odds might be better for being a victim of crime in rural areas, but there are alot more people in urban areas who will become a victim (just less chance it will be yourself).

TechBro8615 3y ago
I'm not sure it's so simple. You're assuming the same random distribution of victims in each place. But crimes are rarely random, and to the degree that they are crimes of opportunity (mugging, robbing a store, senseless violence) vs. premeditated targeting (revenge, passion, etc), it's possible that urban crimes are "more random" than rural crimes. I don't know that they are, of course, but you'd need to be a bit more careful than simply assuming normally distributed randomness of being victim to a homicide.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  No, cities are even less dangerous for most people by that measure. Most people in cities aren’t in gang, nor are they dealing drugs or picking up hookers on the Highway. This is a well known issue, even in “dangerous” cities like St. Louis, homicide victims are often related to the perpetrators in some way (eg in an opposing gang). Violent crime victims are also more likely to be poor (this is true in rural areas as well).
itsyaboi 3y ago
> In 2020, the total gun death rate for rural communities—when age-adjusted per 100,000 people—was 40 percent higher than it was for large metropolitan areas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy

pseudo0 3y ago

The variance in homicide rate is going to be drastically larger for a tiny county of 10k people than a county with 1 million. The difference between 0 homicides/100k and 50 homicides/100k is five people. So trying to compare a few giant urban counties and a bunch of small rural counties is going to result in the small rural counties dominating both the lowest and the highest spots. I noticed they did not list the 20 counties with the lowest homicide rates, I suspect because it would have been 20 tiny rural counties with a rate of 0. And that would have contradicted their narrative. They also selectively choose between "gun deaths" and homicides, and also apply an "age-adjustment" fudge factor, so the numbers they present are not accurate representations of actual homicide rates. Homicide also includes justifiable homicides, like self-defense or justifiable use of force police shootings. It's a pretty classic example of selective presentation and twisting of statistics to suit a pre-established narrative. Not really surprising given who paid for the piece.